Sunday, April 11, 2010

What Republicans Are Doing About Party Unity

The sole reason for the existence of my campaign is the refusal of the Republican party to unify in the general election.  In 2008, the Republican party hierarchy preferred that Dennis Apuan, an anti-war left wing Democrat be elected to represent Fort Carson over the pro-choice, fiscally conservative, military veteran Republican.

What made this especially obnoxious is that the pro-life part of the party couldn't even find a candidate to run in that district.  In their mind, electing a Democrat was preferable to electing a Republican.

I am a precinct leader.  My precinct submitted five separate party unity resolutions for consideration at the El Paso County Republican assembly.  The committee which filters proposed assembly resolutions did not include any of the five.  Their decision was to focus on social issues.  Party unity didn't get a back seat in the assembly resolutions.  It got no seat.

Unfortunately, hard core social conservatives think disrupting party unity works to their advantage.  As Dave Schultheis told the The Gazette on August 8, 2009, "The pro-life plank of the party justifies purges" of fiscally conservative Republicans who are not social conservatives.  They don't care about having a legislative majority.  Schultheis and Lambert told The Gazette in 2005 that they prefer serving in a "pure minority" to serving in a majority that includes people who disagree with them.  Lambert told the Colorado Union of Taxpayers "The ranks of weak Republicans must be thinned."

Most voters would rather see a unified Republican Party thinning Democrat's ranks.